Discuss the latest comic book news and front page articles, read or post your own reviews of comics, and talk about anything comic book related. Threads from the two subforums below will also show up here. News Stand topics can also be read and posted in from The Asylum.

Right, back to the Skull-shaped island that I live on to plan my next essay that no-one will read.

*Pulls cloak up to face and vanishes in puff of smoke.*

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

PDH wrote:No, I already said that I don't necessarily disagree with that. Either you don't understand me or you're deliberately misrepresenting me.

I'm not saying anything more controversial than that it's worth exploring where the line should be drawn. That's not a bold claim. It shouldn't invite this much ire.

Let me repeat: I am not saying that superheroes shouldn't take the law into their own hands to stop Galactus attacks.

But you DO think it's something that should be QUESTIONED. You think "it's worth thinking about is all." And so, like I said, you'll still be mulling it over while you're churning in Galactus's stomach.

A true superhero makes a "citizen's arrest" and hands the bad guy off to the police for the court system to sort out. Making yourself "judge, jury, and executioner" is not in keeping with Good Samaritanism.

On many moral theories that would indeed be the case but not on the moral theories of people like Rorshach.

That's why some people might argue for a general rule against taking the law into your own hands: because it's difficult to come up with a different general rule that couldn't be exploited by the likes of Rorshach. Do I personally agree with them? I don't know, I think it's worth thinking about is all.

And you'll still be mulling it over while you're churning in Galactus's stomach.

There are no stories like that because that's what Knights Templar are made of. Once you decide that "the ends justify the means", you'll go to ANY means -- including villainous ones -- to achieve those ends. That's what makes you the villain!

All superheroes are doing precisely that by virtue of being vigilantes.

No, they're not. Most superheroes refuse to kill; thus, they make sure that they are NOT making themselves "judge, jury, and executioner". And therefore, they do NOT go to just any means to get things done.

They have all stepped outside of the ordinary boundaries of legal conduct on the grounds that not doing so would lead to terrible ends.

There's a difference between killing the bad guys and handing them over to the law in a citizen's arrest.

Vigilantism is NOT currently recognised as acceptable means in most countries

As I keep stressing: The DCU ain't the real world. Your first clue was all the unaided-flying people with the impossible superpowers...

and the Marvel Universe, for one, has explicitly legislated against it more than once.

Which is another reason why the real DCU (as opposed to the DiDio-era crappy takes on it) is a better universe than the Crapsack 616. They aren't scared of their superheroes, not even when they happen to be -- GASP!! -- MUTANTS! "Yes, Quicksilver, there IS a Flash Museum!"

Half the time you argue that superheroes should break the law to prevent terrible consequences like Galactus eating the world

Half the time you CLAIM to agree with me on this aspect, and half the time you think "it's worth thinking about is all", because, actually, you "don't know" if you agree with those who would clamp down on superheroes or not. And you wonder why I keep questioning you on this. "Which is it?", indeed.

(which is a case of 'the ends justify the means')

No, it isn't, because they don't go to ANY means to do it; they take pains not to kill.

then the other half the time you say that people shouldn't do that because that makes them supervillains. Which is it?

I said that they shouldn't KILL. There's a difference, a difference you keep missing.

The real problem is that you believe in a False Dichotomy. You miss the fact that there are many options IN BETWEEN simply letting bad things happen and your favored "Take care of the problem By ANY Means Necessary". Sorry, Mr. Farrakhan, but true heroes don't stoop to your ANY Means because they leave out the option of killing.

Last edited by Herald on Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:08 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Herald wrote:True heroes don't stoop to your ANY Means because they leave out the option of killing.

Although I agree with this statement, I'd argue that killing is not the only option that is off the table for true heroes. Most of the true-blue heroes I can think of also go out of their way to protect people, including (especially?) when it means sacrificing themselves (most famous example: Supergirl sacrificing her life in COIE to save Superman, but there are tons and tons of others). True heroes don't do things like steal... cheat... extort... defraud... con... etc. It's not *just* that Superman won't kill... it's that he'll also divert himself from his battle wiht Zod et al. to save the lady and her baby... that he'll take time out of his patrol of the city to rescue the kitten for the little girl... that he will give up his love affair with Lois Lane to stay Superman and protect us from evil.

BTW, there is a reason why there were rules that heroes of the past used -- it's because the rules make them admirable. For example, the Lone Ranger, a wild west character whose main weapon was a gun never shot to kill, to the best of my recollection. In fact I think it was a rule back then, of the producers, that when he was forced to use guns, he only shot to disarm his opponent -- he wounded them, hitting them in the knee or the arm or something. And then turned them over to the appropriate authorities. This includes the Butch Cavendish scene in the 1981 remake movie "Legend of the Lone Ranger", when he has Cavendish at his mercy. He brings him back for sentencing, handing him over to the ultimate authority in the U.S. (President Grant). Cop shows from the 60s and 70s were often this way as well -- I seem to remember Barnaby Jones shooting people in the arm or leg most of the time.

Now, any good cop will tell you that you never REALLY do this... because a wounded crook can still shoot back. But the Lone Ranger and Barnaby were HEROES, and heroes have a code of honor to uphold... and a code AGAINST killing.

Chessack wrote:BTW, there is a reason why there were rules that heroes of the past used -- it's because the rules make them admirable. For example, the Lone Ranger, a wild west character whose main weapon was a gun never shot to kill, to the best of my recollection. In fact I think it was a rule back then, of the producers, that when he was forced to use guns, he only shot to disarm his opponent -- he wounded them, hitting them in the knee or the arm or something. And then turned them over to the appropriate authorities. This includes the Butch Cavendish scene in the 1981 remake movie "Legend of the Lone Ranger", when he has Cavendish at his mercy. He brings him back for sentencing, handing him over to the ultimate authority in the U.S. (President Grant). Cop shows from the 60s and 70s were often this way as well -- I seem to remember Barnaby Jones shooting people in the arm or leg most of the time.

Now, any good cop will tell you that you never REALLY do this... because a wounded crook can still shoot back. But the Lone Ranger and Barnaby were HEROES, and heroes have a code of honor to uphold... and a code AGAINST killing.

If you let people take the law into their own hands, you don't get to decide how they will handle that. Another person might have a completely different idea of what 'true' heroes should and shouldn't do. This is why rules have to be for everyone and it's tricky to come up with a rule that makes room for Spider-Man without opening the door to the Punisher.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Herald wrote:But you DO think it's something that should be QUESTIONED. You think "it's worth thinking about is all." And so, like I said, you'll still be mulling it over while you're churning in Galactus's stomach.

No, because, as I said, I have no problem with the FF stopping Galactus, I merely think that the ethics of vigilantism are a legitimate topic for stories to explore.

No, because, as I said, I don't agree with Rorshach's views on morality. However, since you're in favour of allowing people to operate outside the law in order to do what they think is right, there is nothing that you can say to someone like Rorshach.

No, they're not. Most superheroes refuse to kill; thus, they make sure that they are NOT making themselves "judge, jury, and executioner". And therefore, they do NOT go to just any means to get things done.

You seemed to be saying that it was OK for superheroes to break the law in order to prevent terrible consequences like Galactus eating the world. Is this not the case?

There's a difference between killing the bad guys and handing them over to the law in a citizen's arrest.

Was someone denying this? Relevance?

Half the time you CLAIM to agree with me on this aspect, and half the time you think "it's worth thinking about is all", because, actually, you "don't know" if you agree with those who would clamp down on superheroes or not. And you wonder why I keep questioning you on this. "Which is it?", indeed.

Let's say it's true that I'm guilty of a double standard. That still doesn't get you off the hook for addressing my point. This is a diversionary tactic, Herald. Is it or is it not OK for superheroes to use illegal means such as vigilantism to achieve their ends?

No, it isn't, because they don't go to ANY means to do it; they take pains not to kill.

So what? Ozymandias doesn't go to ANY means to achieve his ends, either. What possible difference could this make?

I said that they shouldn't KILL. There's a difference, a difference you keep missing.

There is a difference but the difference is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Superheroes refuse to kill or not. We're not here to argue whether these people are morally correct or not. I agree that Spider-Man is morally superior to Rorshach.

We're talking about whether having the power to stop something is sufficient to give someone the authority to do so if they think it's the right thing to do. That's it.

A pro-life Superhero who honestly believed that abortion was murder would be obliged to use his power to blow up abortion clinics if it really were as simple as Chessack's principle suggests.

The real problem is that you believe in a False Dichotomy. You miss the fact that there are many options IN BETWEEN simply letting bad things happen and your favored "Take care of the problem By ANY Means Necessary". Sorry, Mr. Farrakhan, but true heroes don't stoop to your ANY Means because they leave out the option of killing.

If there were options between doing nothing and killing someone then killing someone wouldn't be necessary, would it?

But there's no false dichotomy here. The real, 'real problem' is that you either don't know what we're talking about or you're just deliberately pretending that the subject is something completely different because you don't have a response to it.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

PDH wrote:If you let people take the law into their own hands, you don't get to decide how they will handle that.

We let people drive cars, and we DO get to decide how they will handle that: No driving on the sidewalk, rules on speed, rules on right-of-way.

We let people use cell phones, and we DO get to decide where they will use them: Not while driving a car, not during plane takeoffs and landings (although this is changing, apparently).

We have regulations for MANY things that we allow people to do.

Another person might have a completely different idea of what 'true' heroes should and shouldn't do. This is why rules have to be for everyone and it's tricky to come up with a rule that makes room for Spider-Man without opening the door to the Punisher.

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

Not so tricky after all.Next challenge!!

Last edited by Herald on Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PDH wrote:If you let people take the law into their own hands, you don't get to decide how they will handle that. Another person might have a completely different idea of what 'true' heroes should and shouldn't do. This is why rules have to be for everyone and it's tricky to come up with a rule that makes room for Spider-Man without opening the door to the Punisher.

You know what, Herald? Your post was such a preposterous collection of straw-man arguments that I've seriously started to question if you were even talking to me at all.

For example, you write "There's a difference between killing the bad guys and handing them over to the law in a citizen's arrest."

This seems to be addressed to a person who had written something like, "A superhero who brutally murders a criminal is just as bad as a superhero who hands a criminal over to the authorities."

Yet, looking over my comments and memory I don't recall ever saying anything remotely like that. What I said was that both people are operating outside of the law on their own code, so clearly letting people operate outside of the law on their own code doesn't always work.

I can only imagine that you directed your post at me by mistake. The problem is that there are no other posts on this thread that you could be responding to and you quote me several times, throughout.

So, what I've done is, I've invented a person to say the things that you like to pretend I'm saying. Now you won't have to just make shit up!

Below you will find the other half of the conversation you were having before. I've basically brought the imaginary, straw-man person you were talking to before to life, so that your post won't look like total nonsense! Here you go:

Anyway, I just want to clear a few things up. You know before when it seemed like I was saying something perfectly reasonable to the effect that the ethics of vigilantism are more complicated than silver age comic books suggest? Well, really what I meant was that nobody should ever help anyone, under any circumstances, even if it means letting their own planet be destroyed.

I really believe that if a person says that a subject is worth exploring, then that means that they hold the most extreme and indefensible position with regards to that subject and you shouldn't make any attempt at all to represent their position, fairly!

Now let's talk about superheroes. That Rorshach, eh? What a guy! Don't you just love how he decides for himself who deserves to live based on his objectivist values? Pretty neat, huh? I definitely believe that when Rorshach brutally murders a child abuser, that is morally equivalent to, say, Spider-Man rescuing a small child's pet cat from a tree.

I think that superheroes should always kill everyone they meet, regardless of how serious their crimes are, if any.

Why, if I had my way, every superhero story would be R-Rated, there would not be a single panel that didn't feature someone being disembowelled and stories would consist of nothing other than supervillains talking about philosophy all the time.

Oh and murdering criminals is totally the same thing as handing them over to the police. I really don't know how my argument could survive without that premiss. I sure hope that some handsome Doctor Light fan doesn't undermine that premiss! I'd be so embarrassed! How would I even go on?

I'd say that's the main thing that my argument is about, actually. If someone was trying to engage with what I'm saying, they should focus on that at the expense of all the other things that I said because that's, like, a deal-breaker.

Anyway, I look forward to your response, yours sincerely,

A Straw Man

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Herald wrote:We let people drive cars, and we DO get to decide how they will handle that: No driving on the sidewalk, rules on speed, rules on right-of-way.

We let people use cell phones, and we DO get to decide where they will use them: Not while driving a car, not during plane takeoffs and landings (although this is changing, apparently).

We have regulations for MANY things that we allow people to do.

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

Not so tricky after all.Next challenge!!

Driving is heavily legislated. For example, you need a license to drive a car. I take it, then, that by analogy, you took Iron Man's side in the Civil War?

What's that? You were outraged at the mere existence of the comic?

Oh. Well, I guess you'll need a new argument then. Huh. Almost like the question of how to handle vigilantism is more complicated than, 'let people decide for themselves who the bad guys are and how they should be treated as long as they have the power to take matters into their own hands.'

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

PDH wrote:No, because, as I said, I have no problem with the FF stopping Galactus, I merely think that the ethics of vigilantism are a legitimate topic for stories to explore.

If you have to stop to consider whether superheroes should go into action, the heroes need to stop and wait while you mull it over. And that's all the time Galactus needs...

No, because, as I said, I don't agree with Rorshach's views on morality.

You've said that you believe in "the ends justify the means".You've said MORE than enough, right there.

However, since you're in favour of allowing people to operate outside the law in order to do what they think is right, there is nothing that you can say to someone like Rorshach.

Watch me:

"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."

See, you still believe in that false dichotomy. You can't conceive of only allowing superheroes that don't kill. Just as we have rules for how you can drive your car, there can be rules for superheroes.

You seemed to be saying that it was OK for superheroes to break the law in order to prevent terrible consequences like Galactus eating the world. Is this not the case?

You seem to be saying that allowing superheroes to save the day means allowing superheroes to use ANY means -- including killing -- to save the day. Is this not the case?

There's a difference between killing the bad guys and handing them over to the law in a citizen's arrest.

Was someone denying this? Relevance?

Again, you think that allowing superheroes to beat the bad guys means they should be allowed to use ANY means -- including killing -- to do so.

Let's say it's true that I'm guilty of a double standard. That still doesn't get you off the hook for addressing my point.

I am addressing you point. So YOU address MINE.

So what? Ozymandias doesn't go to ANY means to achieve his ends, either.

So, killing millions of people with his monster, "framing Manhattan, killing the Comedian, framing Rorschach for the murder of Moloch, and staging the attempt on his own life, forcing a cyanide pill down the attacker's throat" don't count as "ANY means" to you??!!

Man, you ARE a villain. You have NO moral compass WHATSOEVER.

There is a difference but the difference is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Superheroes refuse to kill or not. We're not here to argue whether these people are morally correct or not. I agree that Spider-Man is morally superior to Rorshach.

You think that "Ozymandias doesn't go to ANY means to achieve his ends". You have NO moral compass WHATSOEVER.

We're talking about whether having the power to stop something is sufficient to give someone the authority to do so if they think it's the right thing to do. That's it.

Again, you espouse a false dichotomy. There are methods that they shouldn't be using, if they are to operate.

A pro-life Superhero who honestly believed that abortion was murder would be obliged to use his power to blow up abortion clinics if it really were as simple as Chessack's principle suggests.

A true superhero doesn't seek to blow up other people's property.

If there were options between doing nothing and killing someone then killing someone wouldn't be necessary, would it?

PDH wrote:Driving is heavily legislated. For example, you need a license to drive a car.

And how about them cell phones? I see you didn't address those!

I take it, then, that by analogy, you took Iron Man's side in the Civil War?

What's that? You were outraged at the mere existence of the comic?

Oh. Well, I guess you'll need a new argument then. Huh.

What's that? I don't really care that much about Marvel? I have said so MANY times? In fact, DURING THIS VERY CONVERSATION, I slagged the 616 as a ridiculously Crapsack World that is morally inferior to the real DC Universe? And thus, it's no surprise at all to me that some of Marvel's "heroes" stooped to this level? That this seems par for the course, comics in the usual Miserable Marvel Manner?

Oh. Well, I guess you'll need a new argument, then. Huh.

Almost like the question of how to handle vigilantism is more complicated than, 'let people decide for themselves who the bad guys are and how they should be treated as long as they have the power to take matters into their own hands.'

Almost like the question of how to handle superheroes is to not let them use just any mode of operations in the first place.

Last edited by Herald on Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For the last five minutes, I've been playing a Neil Pearlt-inspired drum solo on the table where my laptop is and watching Parks & Rec. I've added more to this conversation than any of you bitches (especially that bitchy bitchest of bitches Herald).